Epstein Secrets

United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) passim United States v. Rittweger, 259 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 268 United States v. Rivera, 546 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2008) 204, 220, 224 United States v. Rivera, No. 09 Cr. 619 (SJF), 2011 WL 1429125, at (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011) 262 Unit

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

or the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a "high one." Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. "Franks protect

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) passim United States v. Rittweger, 259 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 268 United States v. Rivera, 546 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2008) 204, 220, 224 United States v. Rivera, No. 09 Cr. 619 (SJF), 2011 WL 1429125, at (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011) 262 Unit

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

or the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a "high one." Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. "Franks protect

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) 112 vii EFTA00095074 Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) 83 Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) 142 Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) 114, 116 Rochin, 342 U.S., 72 S. Ct. 205 105 Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.S. 257 (1897) 2

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

or the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a "high one." Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. "Franks protect

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

or the truth." Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a "high one." Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. "Franks protect

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame